Going from Nikon 400mm f/2.8 & 500mm f/4 to 600mm PF & 400mm f/4.5

Hadge

Hadge

Suspended / Banned
Messages
352
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
I'll start at the beginning. My main hobby/passion is motorsport plus I do some natre stuff and aircraft and my mainly used lens is my Nikon FL 400mm f/2.8 and sometimes on other days my Nikon FL 500mm f/4. Now the 400mm although a lot lighter than the older G version I had, is still a chunky lens and after a day wandering round my local Oulton Park I do feel it and as I'm 63 I'm also not getting any younger. But...... the 400mm is an amazingly sharp lens, it's focusing speed is so quick and the 500mm is equally as good plus a little lighter and I wondering if I go to the Z mount 600mm PF and 400mm f/4.5S will I really regret swapping them etc. I've been offered a great deal on the lenses as trade and I'm really pulling to the lighter set up and in fact I'd probably use the 600mm more for wildlife so the change could be a godsend.
I know some will say why not get the Z munt 400mm f/2.8 with built in TC but I don't have 400mm with inbuilt TC money so it's 100% not an option. Any users of the Z munt PF and S lens carre to share their findings at all? One other plus pint is I would be totally Z mount as well so the FTZ2's could go.
One last thing, when I'm doing motorpsort I keep my shutter speeds really low. I'm shooting from 1/30 sec up to 1/320 mostly and light isn't an issue or high ISO's. So the maximum apertures of f/6.3 for the PF and 4.5 for the 400mm isn't a problem.
 
The Nikon 500PF is a really good lens that can be "hand held"

being sold at very attractive prices being the Nikon F mount
 
Last edited:
I have the 400 4.5 and 800 6.3 PF on my Z8, great lens, the 400 is amazing for size and weight and extra light gathering over 6.3 I think if you went from 400 2.8 to a 6.3 f-stop you would be disappointed not so for the 4.5 400 IMHO, I miss my 400 FL and will get a Z mount version on day for the low light wildlife, try the 400 4.5 would be my suggestion first
 
Of the ones you mention, I've only got the 600mm 6.3 and I'm gobsmacked how good it is. I had the 500mm PF previously (on a Z9) and I have no regrets at all in changing to the 600. It feels better balanced on the Z9 due lack of FTZ, and the weight sitting further back in the hand.

The Z 100-400mm is also good, and my only other Z lens is a 24-120mm F4
 
I've had the 400/4.5 since they came out. It's a fantastic lens and very light. I lust after the 400/2.8TC but don't have close to that sort of money and the weight difference is huge. The 400/4.5 is so easy to carry around for long periods. It works well with the 1.4tc too.
 
My choice was to get the 180-600 and keep my 400/2.8 for the occasions where I really need the faster aperture. I've considered buying the 400/2.8 TC or the 600/4 TC, but I just can't justify the expense/benefit ratio. For me, the 180-600 is more than adequate. Most of the pictures on my flickr over the last year were taken with this lens.
 
I noticed that Cotswolds have the 400 TC for £9999 and was very tempted. But managed to hold off the GAS on that one given I'd never use it enough to justify it.
 
I’ve got the 400mm f4.5 lens and find it great for wildlife. I love the lighter weight compared to the 200-400 f4 I used to have with Nikon many years back. That was a nice lens but far too heavy and photography wasn’t as enjoyable when needing to carry that around. I left Nikon for lighter weight of mirrorless but never happy, until moving back to Nikon for the Z8 and 400mm f4.5 lens.

I picked up the 1.4 TC to give more reach for a lower cost as can’t justify having both the 400mm f4.5 and 600mm f6.3. Not as good optically but seems ok so far.
 
rob-nikon said:
I’ve got the 400mm f4.5 lens and find it great for wildlife. I love the lighter weight compared to the 200-400 f4 I used to have with Nikon many years back. That was a nice lens but far too heavy and photography wasn’t as enjoyable when needing to carry that around. I left Nikon for lighter weight of mirrorless but never happy, until moving back to Nikon for the Z8 and 400mm f4.5 lens.

I picked up the 1.4 TC to give more reach for a lower cost as can’t justify having both the 400mm f4.5 and 600mm f6.3. Not as good optically but seems ok so far.
Click to expand...
The Z8 and 400 4.5 combo is brilliant, even with the 2x on static subjects it performs really well.
 
Sorry I've not got back to my post earlier but I have tried a Z 400 f/4.5 and compared to my FL it's not even in the same league. Focusing and speed on the FL is just instant and I need that for my photogrpahy so that's a no go.
BillN_33 said:
The Nikon 500PF is a really good lens that can be "hand held"

being sold at very attractive prices being the Nikon F mount
Click to expand...
I've owned 2 PF 500's in the past, missed the light weight but it's slow to focus compared to the FL 500 which is why I chose it over the Z 180-600 and PF lenses when I was looking for something in that focal length. So it seems like I'll be humping the gear round for a while yet. I'll try get hold of a 600mm and see what that's like.
 
Hadge said:
Focusing and speed on the FL is just instant and I need that for my photogrpahy so that's a no go.
Click to expand...
You primarily photograph motorsports don't you? In my opinion/experience focusing "speed" is not really a major factor for that; technique is (panning/tracking/etc)... motorsports is/was quite doable with manual focus lenses. I.e. lens focus speed is more about acquisition, not tracking. You have to have something really small/fast/erratic for lens focusing speed to be a significant factor; or you have to be making the situation fast/erratic with "point and shoot."

I'm not saying you should change your decision; just that the emphasis might be a bit misplaced.
 
sk66 said:
You primarily photograph motorsports don't you? In my opinion/experience focusing "speed" is not really a major factor for that; technique is (panning/tracking/etc)... motorsports is/was quite doable with manual focus lenses. I.e. lens focus speed is more about acquisition, not tracking. You have to have something really small/fast/erratic for lens focusing speed to be a significant factor; or you have to be making the situation fast/erratic with "point and shoot."

I'm not saying you should change your decision; just that the emphasis might be a bit misplaced.
Click to expand...
What you don't understand is that at certain times I am catching a very fast car/bike coming to me that appears from behind spectators or tress etc and the lens has to lock on very very quickly. It's not all just about being in an open space and having lots of time to catch the subject. Hope that helps and it's not misplaced at all.
 
Hadge said:
What you don't understand is that at certain times I am catching a very fast car/bike coming to me that appears from behind spectators or tress etc and the lens has to lock on very very quickly. It's not all just about being in an open space and having lots of time to catch the subject. Hope that helps and it's not misplaced at all.
Click to expand...
If photographing something like a bike coming around a blind corner/trees/etc I would probably be using zone focus/pre-focus and not relying on lens speed at all. Even the slowest lens can make small AF (fous travel) changes very quickly; and longer subject distances require even less focus travel (as typical with motorsports). Just look at how much focus shift/travel is required to go from 20-30 meters on your lens; focus travel/speed requirement is rather low beyond ~10m on any longer focal length lens. Focus lock/tracking/accuracy are more of a camera body concern.

I'm not saying you can't get into situations where focus acquisition is problematic; you certainly can. But that is almost always more of an AF settings/mode or technique issue. Or the camera just isn't up to the task and autofocus is about hopeless... there are times where the lens can contribute to this due to things like light transmission/sharpness/etc, but seldom is it focus/travel speed; not with any reasonably modern lens (ultrasonic motor, etc). IME, if focus speed is an issue, then so are my reflexes.
 
sk66 said:
f photographing something like a bike coming around a blind corner/trees/etc I would probably be using zone focus/pre-focus and not relying on lens speed at all. Even the slowest lens can make small AF (fous travel) changes very quickly; and longer subject distances require even less focus travel (as typical with motorsports). Just look at how much focus shift/travel is required to go from 20-30 meters on your lens; focus travel/speed requirement is rather low beyond ~10m on any longer focal length lens. Focus lock/tracking/accuracy are more of a camera body concern
Click to expand...
I always prefocus and because I don't use fast shutter speeds and pan it's the ability to react quick which the FL does and the Z lens didn't. I'm not doubting the Z 400 f/4.5 isn't a sharp lens but for the use and needs I have it wasn't as good as my FL and both shot side by side, same body.
 
Hadge said:
Sorry I've not got back to my post earlier but I have tried a Z 400 f/4.5 and compared to my FL it's not even in the same league. Focusing and speed on the FL is just instant and I need that for my photogrpahy so that's a no go.

I've owned 2 PF 500's in the past, missed the light weight but it's slow to focus compared to the FL 500 which is why I chose it over the Z 180-600 and PF lenses when I was looking for something in that focal length. So it seems like I'll be humping the gear round for a while yet. I'll try get hold of a 600mm and see what that's like.
Click to expand...
Strange I have the pf500 and the fl 500 , I haven't noticed any difference in af speed between them both are very fast with af,
did you try the pf 500 on a z camera or a dlsr.
Steve Perry did a test on the pf600 comparing the speeds , I'm sure it was on par with the the big primes . iirc the pf500 was slightly quicker .and the 180-600 was the slowest
 
mav said:
Strange I have the pf500 and the fl 500 , I haven't noticed any difference in af speed between them both are very fast with af,
did you try the pf 500 on a z camera or a dlsr.
Steve Perry did a test on the pf600 comparing the speeds , I'm sure it was on par with the the big primes . iirc the pf500 was slightly quicker .and the 180-600 was the slowest
Click to expand...
I used my PF on my D5, D850, D500 and the Z9. I’ve seen Steve’s YouTube video and the PF 500 was slower.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top